Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Adolf Hitler: The Fightin' Liberal

"Hitler's underlying admiration for Marxism was obvious."

Glenn Beck

I thought that the lunacy emanating from FOX Noise couldn't possibly get any weirder than it did during the first year of the Obama administration. I was wrong about that. Last week our friends at FOX finally went over the edge of reason. They have reached the point of what can only be described as surrealistic absurdity.

Now these assholes have taken it upon themselves to rewrite history. Their latest effort comes to us in the form of a new "documentary" which aired last week called "Revolutionary Holocaust". You see, Adolf Hitler wasn't the right wing nightmare that posterity has portrayed him to be all these years. Au contraire! In fact (I hope you're sitting down, Russ Feingold) he was a Liberal. That's right! Der fuhrer was the personification of an elitist, latte sipping, bleeding heart - the ideological soul mate of Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader!

EVERBODY SING!"Deutschland, Deutschland, uber Al Franken...."

And how about that Josef Stalin, huh? For decades we've been led to believe that he was a tyrant and a despot - and indeed he was. But according to Beck and crew, he was a Liberal tyrant; a Progressive despot. We're talkin' Teddy Kennedy on steroids here!

Wait! It gets better! If America ever again goes down the road of Progressive enlightenment, the holocaust that was visited upon Europe in the thirties and forties will surely happen here! Millions of innocent Americans will be murdered! According to Beck: "Allowing this to happen one more time would be unforgivable." OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

Please.FOX Noise is trying to make us swallow the utterly false assertion that Hitler and Stalin were not, as history has led us to believe, bitter enemies. The plain truth of the matter (in their minds) is that they were in bed with one another - ideologically speaking, that is. At one point in this silly program, Jonah Goldberg says, "The Nazis and the Bolsheviks in Germany was really a case of Coke vs. Pepsi." That is why when the Nazi Party was formed in the nineteen-twenties, they decided the swastika at the center of their flag needed to be surrounded by a bold field of red. They were trying to attract the Socialists, whose flag was the same color.

What is conveniently omitted is the fact that Hitler wasn't trying to forward the Socialist cause, he was trying to convert them or - at the very least - confuse them. According to Beck, the only reason Herr Hitler opposed Communism was because he disagreed with its "internationalism". This is utter nonsense which can be debunked by a cursory examination of every comment Hitler ever made (public and private) on the subject of Soviet Russia and Marxism.

HISTORICAL FACT: Here is something else Glenn Beck neglected to mention. It was not only the Jews who were consigned to perish in the Nazi death camps. Also marked for extermination were Gypsies, homosexuals - and Communists. Liberal my eye!

One segment of the program is subtitled, "THE GENOCIDE YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF". What genocide might this be, you may ask? It is the fact that millions of Russians were murdered by Stalin's regime. The Liberals, says Beck, don't want you to know about this and have deleted it from the history books. This segment might more accurately have been called: "THE GENOCIDE THAT GLENN BECK AND YOUR AVERAGE VIEWER OF FOX NOISE HAS NEVER HEARD OF". I don't know about you but I've known about the mass murder carried out by Josef Stalin ever since I started reading history in my early teens. What books (or book) is Glenn talking about? "My Life, My Loves" by Eddie Fisher perhaps? Come to think of it, old Eddie did omit that nasty little fact from his text. Coincidence? I wonder. He's hiding something, I know it!

For me, the highlight of this utterly ludicrous (and screamingly funny) program is when they show an ancient film clip of George Bernard Shaw. He is seen advocating a system whereby people would be forced - once a year - to stand before a committee to prove their worth to society. If they are unable to do so, Shaw implies that they should be eliminated. He then says that a humane, "gentlemanly" gas should be devised to do the job.

Here is as good an example as anything I can conjure how the propagandists at FOX operate: Shaw is described as an avowed admirer and Supporter of Communism. He is not described as what he really was: an aging play write who, even as a young man, was known for his profound eccentricities. But by his eighties the author of Pygmalion had grown beyond eccentric - he was down right dotty! And yet in this clip, Beck gives the impression that he is some kind of statesman of reputation.

The fact is, by the end of his life, George Bernard Shaw was widely dismissed by almost everybody as a harmless and amusing old curmudgeon. Certainly by the time the Nazis seized power in 1933, no one was taking him seriously as a social commentator. And it should be noted that Shaw also had a fondness for making outrageous statements for no other purpose than to shock polite society - tongue planted firmly in cheek. Who knows what the old bugger was really thinking.

Here's a little experiment you can perform. If you know someone who gets his or her information primarily from FOX, ask them this one, very simple question:

Who was George Bernard Shaw?

I'm willing to bet you dinner and a movie that he or she will not have a clue. Or, if they happened to catch the Beck program, their answer will be: "George Bernard Shaw? He was a Communist. Why, everybody knows that!"

Now it can be told. Glenn Beck has exposed the Progressive movement for what it really is: a cabal of blood-thirsty, despotic maniacs whose only plan is to bring a genocidal rain of death and destruction down upon the good and decent citizens of this grand and glorious land of ours. Be afraid. Be very afraid. WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN....

But seriously, folks....

The "Far Left" that the Far Right loves to whine about so much does not even exist in this country any longer. You don't believe me? The next time you're in any big city, try finding the local chapter of the American Communist Party. Happy hunting!

Last month it was revealed that Glenn Beck was the second most popular television personality in the nation (second only to Oprah Winfrey). The very fact that this nitwit has been able to commandeer a huge chunk of this country's political conversation and that so many people take him seriously is all the proof one needs to conclude that stupidity is running rampant in America. The program which aired on FOX last week ignored all the good that has been done for this country in the last century by Liberal policies and politicians. Not surprisingly, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal were not mentioned - not even in passing.

Sure enough, while surfing through the right wing blogosphere yesterday, I found more-than-a-few sites that had picked up the "Adolf as flaming Lefty" flag and run with it. It sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? It really is an amusing thing to behold - and not a little unnerving.

Tom DeganGoshen, NY

AFTERTHOUGHT:

What I just wrote may sound like wild exaggeration but it isn't - and I'll prove it to you. To watch this wondrous piece of historical nonsense unedited, go to the You Tube site and type in the words, "Glenn Beck, Revolutionary Holocaust". You'll be able to view it in its nutty entirety. Here's a link:

48 Comments:

I think it's very scary. If you have any 'right wing' friends, you know they buy this stuff. They might even say they don't watch fox but you know they then at least listen to right wing radio that believes anything fox says. We have a nutty right wing billionaire who didn't even come from this country and is doing all he can to destroy it both through his news program and his 'entertainment' network which shovels out the worst of the worst to amuse people. And yet a majority of Americans (right wingers) believe Fox is the most reliable news out there. It says what they want to hear. Where is this idiocy taking us?

I have to agree with Rain, Tom. Normally, your posts amuse me in a sort of "right on brother, way to tell it!" kind of way but this one really gets to the meat of something very sad and scary. "Where is this idiocy taking us?" Indeed.

There have always been ignorant dolts in this country but they didn't have the power of radio and TV crackpots to fuel their idiocy.

It is scary that a bunch of angry and stupid people can command the attention that they do. The Tea Party is rudderless at this point; lets hope they are unable to get a more charismatic leader than they have now.

More frightening to me are their counterparts in Congress. To think that such a bigoted and dumb group have power to stop government in its tracks is really terrifying.

As John Stuart Mill, the 19th century economist and philosopher claimed, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." It's certainly true in 21st century America.

Metaphorically speaking, if conservatism were an internal combustion engine, Fox News would be the fuel. A complicit government, overtaken by rogues of corporatists, is the turbocharger.

A part of the problem with the angry people is that they do not realize the world has left them behind. They still believe in God, church, mother, apple pie, and picnics in the park with a band on the Fourth of July. They fail to realize that the world has become much more complex, life is no longer simple, and therefore more frightening. They are angry because they want a life that no longer exists, and it scares the hell out of them.

Beck and Palin babble nonsense and they take it in because they do not realize that it is nonsense.

It's a poisoned brew composed largely of the arrogant, uneducated bigots grown so proudly from the seedlings of fools like Lucianne Goldberg and (former "liberal") Irving Kristol since the early 80's - the secret plan by the Cheney-Rumsfeld Anti-Government (put-Nixon's-policies-back-in-play and give themselves total power) Coalition, which brought us the first Beck-fake (old smiley Raygun himself) in anti-government attire (Masque of Red Death rather than Halloween costumes) under the "It's Morning in America" progressive-program-decrying propaganda rubric.

The saddest part is that a tenet of "liberalism" has been to speak no evil of others, which has been used to good effect against themselves as it makes for a one-sided dirty fight.

We've got to stop expecting these clods to play fair. They weren't put in these positions to play fair. They are pure propaganda machines and must be treated as such: swept out the door the moment you notice their dastardly presence.

"As John Stuart Mill, the 19th century economist and philosopher claimed, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." It's certainly true in 21st century America."

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and this quote certainly proves it it to be so.Utilitarianism is the belief that something has value when it is useful or promotes happiness, in other words, if it feels good, do it.John Stuart Mill argued that the object of all legislation should be “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”In other words, unless everyone benefits, there should be no legislation.They believed in a "representative democracy", such as they had in Greece.The Founding Fathers knew this was the way to ruin and set us up to be a "representative republic".

Robert Peel, founder of the Conservative Party in the UK, in his founding document:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamworth_Manifestoset forth the priciples that the party was based on.Increasing voting eligibility.A careful review of institutions, civil and ecclesiastical.The correction of proved abuses and the redress of real grievances.Opposition to unnecessary change, because that would lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation".

All of these make for a rational and reasonable political party.

BTW classical liberalsism of the 18th and 19th centuries would be conservatives today, i.e., we are committed to the ideals of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets.

Glen Beck's only religion is money. It's therefore unfortunate that those that watch, him take his word as gospel. Beck isn't motivated by his fear of what this President will do. He's motivated by how much money he cram into his wallet on the backs of people who are all too willing to be told who and what to fear.

"I want my country back" becomes the mantra of people who have found a semi-legitimate beacon to illuminate their own baseless fear of what the last election has wrought. If only they were following someone who was a true believer instead of a bloated money hungry media whore, I might have some respect for them.

Anonymous, get a clue, please - for your own sake, and the sake of those you posture for.Among your other errors of thought and interpretation, this - "in other words, unless everyone benefits, there should be no legislation" - is notably flawed. No, that's not Mill said. That's what YOU said - in order to deflect the painful reality that most stupid people are in fact, conservative. That's because they're terrified of any changes to their comfy and limited perceptual ruts; changes that would necessitate taxing their already badly-strained cognitive capabilities. FYI, Utilitarianism is in reality an offshoot of consequentialism, which advocates that those actions are right which bring about the most good overall.Secondly, the original conservative party in the UK bears little resemblance to the current cadre of barely-literate, racist, xenophobic misfits that comprise those average American citizens identifying themselves as conservative. Based on today's reality, the term "conservative" itself is a misnomer: The only thing these dullwits favor conserving is obscene tax breaks for the mega-rich and zero oversight and accountability for corporations - no matter how much they defraud, cheat, and steal (of course, a poor person who steals food after a major disaster should be shot!) And you'll notice that not even the mainstream conservative party in the UK is stupid enough to advocate dismantling their "socialist" public healthcare program, which the rest of the civilized world ALSO favors - gee, that must make them all commies! Or socialists! You people are so confused about the two, y'all use them interchangeably, which is pretty entertaining for the rest of us. Which gets us back to the vicinity of the actual topic of Tom's article currently being discussed - the facts of which you neatly sidestepped in your lame attempt to discredit the remarks of another. And you might try learning some history and learning FROM history yourself before you admonish others to do so. Either that, or stick to commenting on wingnut sites where the "readers" would scarcely know the difference.

Rock Ribbed Conservative (aka "Anonymous"), I'm not entirely sure what your objection to Mr. Mills insightful thought would be, other than it possibly hits the nail squarely on the head.

Mill was a proponent of Utilitarianism, often described as "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility, used extensively within the framework of economics to describe the maximization of "happiness" or "pleasure" (quantified as "utils"), was what many utilitarians in his time defined as the "satisfaction of preferences". It may be described that happiness, or pleasure, was of ultimate importance. His contention was that everyone had the right to do as he or she pleased, as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of another. This doesn't describe capitalism, certainly not as it's practiced in the United States today.

What Mill seemed to mainly object to in capitalism was the idea of the master/servant relationship that he thought was inherent in the employer/employee relationship, or in all hired labor (which was why he was a great advocate of worker cooperatives). He seemed to see co-ops as a means of bringing all that to an end, so that we would all be roughly equal before the law. This he called socialism. But clearly there was nothing, at all, conservative about this, nor in the conservative paradigm that you defend with its roots in destructive pursuits of resources, land, and labor. Sir, you couldn't be more wrong in your analysis.

By the way, no, you do not have my permission to use my blogger profile for your own pursuits, nor do you have my permission to use the "United States Flag of Monopolies". But, given the nature of your ilk's penchant for relentless pursuit of profits and freedom, no matter the cost to society at-large, or the individuals involved, I know you'll take it anyway. It's in your blood, just as your predatory nature calls you to claim superiority over all other living things.

My friend and I were recently discussing about how technology has become so integrated in our day to day lives. Reading this post makes me think back to that discussion we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.

I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Societal concerns aside... I just hope that as memory becomes cheaper, the possibility of downloading our brains onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I dream about every once in a while.

"His contention was that everyone had the right to do as he or she pleased, as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of another. This doesn't describe capitalism, certainly not as it's practiced in the United States today."

Please explain how capitalism infringes upon any of your rights.

I would say that government infringes upon many more of our property and personal rights than you would admit to.

Here's some now:Rapanos v. United States (2006)http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR062408.html

Anonymous (assume, aka "Rock Ribbed Conservative"), you asked me to explain how capitalism infringes upon any of my rights. Before going on, I think it's more important to rephrase your question, and for me to explain how capitalism, as it's practiced today (which isn't "free enterprise" capitalism), intrudes upon my life (your life!) in such a formidable fashion that not only does it infringe upon my rights, but it has deceitfully secured the same civil liberties for itself through over a century of dreadful and consequential court decisions. Corporate power has, through sympathetic courts along with corporatist elements within our legislative and executive branches (at all levels), secured firm footing as the dominant force that controls every aspect of our lives today. To deny this is denying the truth; to not know this is the consequence of, well, falling right into the hands of those who don't want you to understand this.

If your primary news source is Fox News, or any of the corporate networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.), than your understanding of what's truly happening to this country is skewed at best. A free press was assuredly disposed of back in 1988 when then President Ronald Reagan abolished The Fairness Doctrine. As the speaker notes in the link provided, currently (as of 2007) only five corporate entities control over 14,000 radio stations in the United States, 5,000 TV affiliates, 80% of newspapers, and all the billboards. Since the elimination of The Fairness Doctrine, over 80% of investigative reporters have been fired and not replaced. Consequently, the ability to find out and know the truth about every critical issue occurring today has been obscured at best, or totally eliminated from public discourse.

Do yourself a favor, and that of your fellow citizens, and read everything you can about "corporate personhood" and the systematic dismantling of our democratic processes by corporate dominance within our halls of government. It's a foregone conclusion that we're no longer a government "by the people, and for the people", but rather a government owned and controlled by corporate influence solely for the benefit of their shareholders and benefactors. To not understand this, and to be only railing against "big government", is missing the bigger picture entirely.

I personally do not label Glenn Beck as 'far right' at all if you are meaning an American Conservative point of view with respect to Constitutional interpretation. In fact, he is just as "liberal" in his outlandish beliefs with respect to corporate entities as the left wingers are that are promoting the global warming garbage and propaganda (since the Earth's core is what is heating up, as which does occur with all planetary masses and this scam once again is to feed the British bankers who own the Fed and the global world stock market).

He is a British Conservative if anything, and in fact wore shirts promoting Great Britain during his recent book tour and works for Fox (the national animal of the British) and Rupert Murdoch who is a zionist whose father was a British Lord and is buying up our media promoting his political views and who has extensive holdings in the Middle East for his satellite cable holdings.

Beck is a Brit politically, and so are most on Fox, and Murdoch's marketing scheme is to use "authority" figures such as lawyers or teachers, or "born again" Christians who believe in the end of days scenario (since that promotes zionism) as his commentators - using a cute young blond for the males for eye candy and a lawyer for the commentary such as O'Reilly, Beck, etc.

And his local news stations and internet sites also use the same format.

Wake up America. The British aren't simply coming, they own the bank and our media.

I can't see where anyone has mentioned that Karl Rove is behind what Beck and Hannity say. He tells them about their bread and butter rantings. He is employed by Faux News as is the cheating lying Palin. My somewhat intelligent son with an I.Q. of 135 and Obama voter has been brainwashed by Faux News. To me that is so scary. Plus no one acknowledges it is Karl Rove. Karl Rove who ran Bush's second election and eliminated Kerry.Christian Science Monitor just reported from the Washington Post that Richard Mellon Scaife is behind the tea parties. He who has never had to work a day in his life, brainwashes the middle class to accept their lot. People don't seem to know of him either. His Great Grandfather Thomas Mellon is my Great Great Grandfather.

Nancy, I agree with you about the media. I have not watched television since 1962 except Masterpiece theater. Love reading AP news on=line and Christian Science Monitor which is so open minded presenting both sides of issues. Assuring us that if we let the tax cuts to the rich expire at the end of this year, we raise 210 billion a year to offset the debt of Bush's war games.

Hitler a liberal? By today's standards? Hitler scapegoated an entire group of people to facilitate his rise to power. Actually, several groups of people: the Jews, homosexuals, Slavs... The only similarity I see, by today's standard, is the scapegoating being perpetrated by conservative republicans in their scapegoating of illegal immigrants, homosexuals, atheists...

First, Commenter Ronni is right. Stupid people are breeding like crazy.Second, thanks to Tom for pointing out that Stalin's murder of a crapload of people has not been removed from history by Progressives (or anyone, for that matter). Every time GB says that I want to scratch my eyeballs out. Especially when he mentions the asst working on his show that has a BA or MA in History and had never heard of it. Maybe that's b/c only stupid people would work for GB.

@Tom,I don't watch "Fox News," in fact I'd like it blocked from my cable service and then have my single household officially deducted from Nielsen's data... so thanks for telling me about this latest foray in to horse shit by that moron Glenn Beck, otherwise I never would have heard of it.My real issue with this all is, Howard Stern used to get fined by the FCC for telling infantile dick jokes on the radio, --yet Fox "News" commits all kinds of "creative" ommissions and tells all kinds of lies and never gets fined for anything. If the FCC were a commission worth anything at all to this nation, they'd shut down FNC for false advertising and a host of other unethical activities that endanger the country with misinformation and lying.-SJ

Bernard Shaw did not believe in private property, unalienable rights or anything our US Constitution espouses. He was a European Socialist. His words not mine. I truly hope he had/has no influence in American thinking these days. He seems from what I have read a very disturbed man. What is it with these types that everybody has to share but someone has to be at the top dictating to everybody how much and to whom. So who tells them what to do? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism, socialism will never work in America due to we have never lived under it and never will. Although Socialism has gained tons of ground hopefully we can take it back. Capitalism is the only fair way humans can live in a civil society. History has proven that fact.

Wendy You are wrong on several counts. (1) America has been at least a little socialist since the New Deal which takes us back to the pre war years. This is well before Kennedy, Carter, Clinton or Obama (2) Despite these few socialist aspects (unemployment insurance, medicare, social security and welfare) The US is overwhelmingly capitalist and will remain so despite what little tweaks to the system Obama is attempting. (3) Sharing is not something people are innately good at. They need a little push. People earning lots of money should get to keep most of their loot. No one is talking about "taking it all away". But it only makes sense that they need to give up some of it to help others. If this is not the case, where is this money to come from--the poor? When people say that the wealthy should not be taxed more to help the poor they are in effect saying "no one should help the poor". Do you accept this logic?

Ralphlake, no I do not accept that principle because my body, my wealth, my property is MINE. No body has the right to TAKE anything from me that I am unwilling to give (Natural Law). If you go down the road of logic that others can dictate to you what you must give how do you stop them once they go even further? There is a reason the Founding Fathers put in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are unalienable and we hold these truths to be self-evident. These guys were not wet behind the ears on Freedom and Liberty. They lived under Rulers Law and studied for years why this type of authority does not work.

I believe that the American people are some of the most generous people on the planet. There is no other group of people who donate FREELY their money, their time, their knowledge more then we do. I beleive that is because we are FREE to do so at our own discrection.

Who would decide what charity, church, orginization gets what and how much? Do you not see the corruption that could happen with a system like like? The government has no right to push, nudge, coerce anybody. Then we have a dictatorship. Hense Hitler.

Wendy What holds your society together--what makes it a society? . Government is simply the collective you. It's simply your voice magnified. If the government should issue a statement that each of us "owes" a little to the other and that that will be taken out in the form of taxes but that in every other respect you will be left alone, where's the harm in that? As for corruption, business is just as corrupt as government. The banks as you know (and this is hardly the first time) took your money and wasted it in a way that was far more harmful to society than any government corruption. Bernie Madoff himself took more money than was given to GM. You have an inordinate fear of government and a naive faith in the goodness of the American people. Government does not automatically become a dictatorship. Hitler isn't the only outcome. There is such a thing as enlightened government. The current administration in Washington is a good start in that direction. And your money's safe.

Ralphlake, The Founding Fathers new that men were flawed and everybody had vices and could and would eventually become corrupt without checks and balances placed on them. That is why they created the 3 branches of government each one battling with the other so that way no one had supreme power, even the courts. We have a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy which limits the governments powers. Our nation is a nation of laws not of men just for the reason stated above. And that is what holds society together and in order.

The government does represents us and it's main purpose is to protect our rights that are stated in the Bill of Rights and make sure the Constitution is maintained.

As for as the corporate tyrants that we have in this country who do you thing they backed in last election?? Andrew Sterns, AIG all the others that got bailed out by this government and are still getting bailed out why do you suppose that is? Bush opened Pandoras box and the current admin took the reins and ran with it. Why not. Their only human.

As far as banks you have the choice to switch banks or not use one at all your choice. I use a local bank not a coporate giant just for that reason. They are corrupt. But Capitalsim would solve that really easy and is with people not using the big banks anymore and going to local smaller banks. As it should be.

I think your logic is flawed in the sense that YOU believe that the government has your best interest at heart. It doesn't anymore. It has become corrupt with Lobbyiest, Unions, Big Business, Foreign influences and the apathy of the citizens of this nation.

Inordinate fear of government? No just a realization that they do not represent us anymore due to we haven't been involved in the process for them to be a proper representative government. We must have government but they need to be virtuous and moral(and I don't mean Jerry Falwels for goodness sakes) leaders since that is what our Contitution was based on.

I do appreciate you taking the time and having this discussion. Not many can do that these days on both sides of the issues.

Hitler, as a National Socialist, has elements of the left and right in his ideology. The nationalist side comes from the right and the socialist side comes from the left. In a nutshell, the socialist side decided that some folks needed to die in order to reach their Utopian vision, and the Nationalist side told them who those people were.

Anon I grant you that government is not truly representative of the people. My definition of the government as the collective you was a over simplification. Of course, government represents the rich and powerful first and the poor and the powerless last. It's a very imperfect system. I think that we have little fear of the current left drift leading to socialism. If anything the drift is inadequate to the emergency we are facing. America could be a far better country than it is. It needs to reinvent itself on a grand scale. It needs to be driven by both engines--the capitalist engine that creates wealth and the socialist engine that seeks to create a fair and equitable society. The rich don't get rich on their own efforts alone (because they possess the initiative)--they need the system and the cooperation of ordinary working people. For the same reason, people don't become poor because they lack initiative--they are the victims of the system and their poverty is the result of a lack of cooperation with people better off than they are. This analysis is not socialist--it's common sense.

Now if we could harness wealth creation with compassion, we could create a matchless society that would be the envy of the world. We would be copied everywhere and we would have no enemies. America would be truly great.

My husband was arguing with my father in law about news on TV. My father in law watches Fox News. We don't, and wouldn't. We don't even own cable TV because of the nonsense we've seen on it. When my husband smacked down Fox News as a lot of made up nonsense, my father in law's comeback was: "If they're so bad, why do so many people watch them?" Hm, good point there, dad. Says something about this country, doesn't it? This makes me sad. That even intelligent people like my father in law can be so gullible.

Nazis were socialists you dummy. Hitler also allied with the USSR when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. Hitler was too liberal and that was the problem. Extremes on both sides are always wrong. Maybe you should step down from your pedestal and learn something. PS I think you are hot.

These outpourings (from Beck & Faux News) remind me of the unvarnished fuckwittage thrown around by those on the right who all - rather mystically - became disciples of the book, 'Liberal Fascism', by Jonah Goldberg.

The fact that Mr Goldberg hadn't done his readers the meagre courtesy of referring to an English dictionary before concocting the title to his book made it all the more easy to lampoon.

Sadly, you can still hear the book's rather lamentable talking points parroted, by rote, by many on the Right today - not the least of whom being Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limabaugh et al.

"His contention was that everyone had the right to do as he or she pleased, as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of another r. This doesn't describe capitalism, certainly not as it's practiced in the United States today."

Is a sentiment that gets wide agreement. The key phrase (italicized) is a bit vague.